From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-dy2-f41.google.com (mail-dy2-f41.google.com [74.125.229.41]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E9A630E858 for ; Mon, 5 Oct 2026 05:31:51 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=74.125.229.41 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1791178312; cv=none; b=QHypIAYSC/5Glh0badTF+X6HgMPRIDDjyJxbt9zeDmKJYVtY+kEh6BIuhD8uLyU32/38A3JiHCg2SnXptBEIF6h4X1RW/2Hhyz3LZbsrPLlbJTME9mXrTEs0CZIhzkgEEYj0SZDJMIEg/lfhRiHB1h+5NWwoUcRLRYKzgxsww3Y= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1791178312; c=relaxed/simple; bh=POxxjDSxZlHQfyZkrcAnx7XWj0an4MkT8ArD9j0Rkcg=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:Date:Message-ID:References; b=Bz0DCp+PIDqbNHkgdpHIbMYMNx98tyf+XMtSPluidgAEoF9by428Opa++06J1+MzeTqq9Drhf3V6QRpzcxI+PFkEQh+D+kQa928y6Wshm6G94kZK8H0J5ZiraecFGl5EX+0/WyCzl8HHIvGGs0boqH9Go1OcN+CTz7PvuGZGfpw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=tHxErgMp; arc=none smtp.client-ip=74.125.229.41 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="tHxErgMp" Received: by mail-dy2-f41.google.com with SMTP id 5a478bee46e88-34c0b552ccfso919697eec.3 for ; Sun, 04 Oct 2026 22:31:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20251104; t=1791178310; x=1791783110; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=references:message-id:date:in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:from:to :cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to:content-type; bh=cIbXE6R67m8wmmcQnF+5IRKqUHaCj3Oi7gyWQv3055A=; b=tHxErgMp9X5jGre1UVi3mM0MUN0Rpc1PNllHJYmRU4hEXHbRLeozT1gqMTittgT31W x2sg52MuGMRThqItgnahcV6IQ0aqPViMwrS6EaYSaQrNNq/DeY1NyiwTxDZdiPeIDs8d 8RmGfttr0gTc6sU2RVbhFmgxz143RfivFeGB+Izev0X4/aJ3rN3r9iMLSMBiJbW4BPSM UYxdCKYTcjMp+JqF+rlb354/0m3ieqn3bT8UuWBFQQlFC4dOHa5lmP3YoGkzC+aCjtEm VlNv0gEwLoBfi92LaETkFOE2f36zmw+4kuRp3tsJAIfdVdy73OJz/5LRVEgMYinMUA5E KS8Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20260707; t=1791178310; x=1791783110; h=references:message-id:date:in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:x-gm-gg :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to :content-type; bh=cIbXE6R67m8wmmcQnF+5IRKqUHaCj3Oi7gyWQv3055A=; b=27Wn+P6dREsYgQAI8vkbJ7KlvEUG2IL3wdsGkP/cb1KLjKxb3uP1mZnrI2joNa9F0S T5oNlTKQAwPi4JEsVYsCcdQC3JBmZH7MKcwgsZmck81pATXoAkHMxYPxwDI8MYWSv+Nz C43Qw5tZKlSrMLeYnQGjnCgpw32ERUUXRiU6XYhZ5vnLy+cJRdzp8wqwFqIUh69m8qtu /vnehih8USzINT/QZ/YPTv+65JJS5fWVL4wwn3Cjsz2lijWnLBZeN+A0g+uHOryD8ocu fCj3jWdYj9PgenTA6ySoIYk6uLIPf2TS+5fvQCDMqXeS8sKByYbUMgX1g++yubH+5Kvv fLHQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AFuF++ny2QrIoV+ILTkXPjws5Za9ZfbjkqgNLGKuMWWnH3flIimtvuUj s3QSEzB4Pmuyy4tGKy+l8+vqXz/FGllUa+qHaLa+WsP9cCXEf2YRUTT/ X-Gm-Gg: AYBFou1nmnOHcy5/kyF4e9rfMJeu7fTIc9bEwKE22DlRm8W05EnlCOaMJTR+2OwHJTV xf2qwDHAnaE8/G/ZotNhIu5Fq7RKQoNq70ADARsmF6hl+fvpUhgn0p3EfNv5ABwbW//6chXr9Uh GiGNGtbxYW6ggmuUC0lP5bbSBmj5FbifCQKlEV0PZW2zVjvcI+quCgIVsq7Ymn5mA1alodqAtBP CsvLCxPwdosZJXzkLiIyLvoHLSETQqOrznwPGnwXWPqrvhYH5+J80+DIeq/eksWssgEmCeE0iqm PbME4KyYkH7KcAcP421DRHKiegVAoiFhzyVgNyZdZhJYLBnlkHt7jm4SKj0sBgYgc4QKhqyXyos tZNEHpS99NYiq4C4VU6e3Y+TYxngGHdvKu6I6s0JlHhtaDdU71KD9/1oF1k2iBP8MKTxwzHueCm KPnGtJfEcH/21RUWtJ8eg99sEzAXlJubYKItZ/NvucWMYn2OPcfH8iLCe9SbIJ3UMhrYXkw44t6 lKty74Xmkyz2owTsIbXG7vWg/H48bYend6etQ1vIBbStMrufqoZSDbb/II3zrUb X-Received: by 2002:a05:693c:69c5:b0:34c:45da:9b5 with SMTP id 5a478bee46e88-34f150c28c4mr12369259eec.20.1791178309882; Sun, 04 Oct 2026 22:31:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pve-server ([49.205.216.49]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 5a478bee46e88-351271612e9sm10257390eec.12.2026.10.04.22.31.44 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sun, 04 Oct 2026 22:31:49 -0700 (PDT) From: Ritesh Harjani (IBM) To: Sean Christopherson Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, Paolo Bonzini , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Michael Ellerman , Christophe Leroy , Anushree Mathur , Venkat Rao Bagalkote , Harsh Prateek Bora , Madhavan Srinivasan , Shrikanth Hegde , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/9] KVM: selftests: add powerpc support In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2026 09:55:36 +0530 Message-ID: References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: kvm@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Hi Sean, Sorry I didn't see this email before sending out v6. I think we can ignore v6, once the discussion here is sorted - I can share a v7. Sean Christopherson writes: > On Sat, Oct 03, 2026, Ritesh Harjani wrote: >> Sean Christopherson writes: >> Also note - I will open code the TEST_GEN_PROGS_COMMON and will skip the >> kvm_create_max_vcpus > > Oh, right, kvm_create_max_vcpus is a common test. Can userspace detect that it's > running KVM-on-PowerVM (in a not completely unpleasant way)? If so, an alternative > would be to keep the KVM_CAP_PPC_SMT change in v6 (patch 2) as a prep patch (before > adding PPC support to Makefile.kvm), and then add a > TEST_REQUIRE(!kvm_is_on_ppc_powervm()) or whatever. > So stictly speaking there is no simple check like that - however, I think we can skip the test when we are running on pseries LPAR (meaning trying to run a nested guest). We already have the check is_pseries_lpar() for access_tracking_perf_test. I think we can re-use the same check here as well. > I think I'd even prefer to take on an #ifdef (to scope it to PPC if necessary) > over open coding TEST_GEN_PROGS_COMMON. Sure, so will add this check for kvm_create_max_vcpus() #ifdef __powerpc64__ TEST_REQUIRE(!is_pseries_lpar()); #endif Actually I was thinking we may as well use the same check for now for skipping hardware_disable_test on pseries. Because there also we suffer from the same resource limitation. Let me know if that sounds ok to you or do you want us to skip kvm_create_max_vcpus() only for now, since it is part of TEST_GEN_PROGS_COMMON? > LoongArch open coded its full test list > for some reason, and in less than a year it has started missing out on new common > tests. > >> (& maybe few others like vm_types_test) from that in v6. > > What's wrong with VM types test? That one really should Just Work on all > architectures. It doesn't run on LoongArch, but I assume that's > oversight? So the test doesn't fail (it gets skipped). However this cap "KVM_CAP_VM_TYPES" is only supported on x86 and since I was planning to open code all common tests, hence I thought I may as well not add this in the first place. BTW, based on this discussion, I think I will re-arrange the patches in the following order and send a v7. (The Makefile.kvm changes will only get added after the main patch which adds powerpc support). cfabdb049bd7 2026-10-05 [Ritesh Harjani (IBM)] (HEAD -> feat-ppc-kvm-selftests-new-sean-v7) KVM: selftests: Skip hardware_disable_test on pseries 2b51fab87b95 2026-09-22 [Ritesh Harjani (IBM)] KVM: PPC: selftests: Skip idle-page check when running nested on pseries LPAR f5d1de1be4e9 2026-10-05 [Ritesh Harjani (IBM)] KVM: selftests: Skip kvm_create_max_vcpus on pseries e45ba15cea25 2026-10-03 [Ritesh Harjani (IBM)] KVM: PPC: selftests: Add helper for checking if running nested 178c9bca0e20 2026-09-22 [Nicholas Piggin] KVM: PPC: selftests: add support for powerpc 22320662e776 2026-09-11 [Ritesh Harjani (IBM)] KVM: selftests: Fix kvm_create_max_vcpus test for powerpc 11b5712b213b 2026-09-22 [Ritesh Harjani (IBM)] KVM: selftests: Move memslot_perf_test off the 256M ELF load address 63c900860b5f 2026-09-22 [Ritesh Harjani (IBM)] KVM: selftests: Don't limit LE dirty-bitmap bitops to s390x Please let me know if this sounds ok? -ritesh